Ejabool Jan Mohd. Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2016 Latest Caselaw 7404 Bom

                                                                                   4. cri wp 435-16.doc


RMA      
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




                                                                                                
                                  CRIMINAL W.P. NO. 435 OF 2016




                                                                        
            Ejabool Jan Mohd. Shaikh                                     .. Appellant

                                 Versus




                                                                       
            The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                              .. Respondents

                                                  ...................
            Appearances




                                                            
            Mrs. Nasreen S.K. Ayubi Advocate (appointed) for the Appellant
            Mr. Arfan Sait          APP for the State
                                              
                                      ...................
                                             
                              CORAM       : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
                                              A.M. BADAR, JJ.
                              DATE        :   DECEMBER 16, 2016.
              
           



            ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :

            1.           Heard both sides.





            2.           The petitioner preferred an application for parole on





            15.9.2014.               The grievance of the petitioner is that his

            application is not yet decided, hence, the Court to decide the

            same.




            jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                                   1 of 3


                   ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2016                         ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2016 00:26:33 :::
                                                                  4. cri wp 435-16.doc




    3.           In order to decide whether the parole should be granted




                                                                              
    to the prisoner or not, the police report is necessary.                     The




                                                      
    petitioner wants to spend his period of parole in the State of

    Jharkhand, hence, the police report was called from the State




                                                     
    of Jharkhand.              The said report has not yet been received,

    hence, it is not possible to decide the application of the




                                            
    petitioner for parole.
                                    
                                   
    4.           It is not for the Court to decide the application for

    parole but it is the Competent Authority to decide the
      

    application of the petitioner for parole. Looking to the fact
   



    that the application is pending since long time, we are of the

    opinion that the following order would meet the ends of





    justice:-

                                          ORDER

i. The Competent Authority to decide the application of

the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the

date of receipt of this order.

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 3

4. cri wp 435-16.doc

5. In view of this order, we are not inclined to interfere

and it is left to the Competent Authority to decide the

application of the petitioner for parole within two weeks from

the date of receipt of the order.

6. In view of the above, Rule is discharged.

[ A.M. BADAR, J. ] ig [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]

jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 3